JUDGMENT : Since both these applications are against the judgment dated 18.09.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1992 the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. A. K. Tiwary, learned A.P.P. is present. 3. The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 18.09.2000 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro at Chas in G. R. Case No. 495-B of 1987 dated 25.09.1992 by which the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months as also pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each has been affirmed. 4. A First Information Report was instituted by one Sita Devi (P.W. 5) wherein it was alleged that she was married with the petitioner no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 388 of 2000 in the year 1984. It is alleged that the after a couple of years there was demand of a motorcycle and Rs. 15,000/- made by the in-laws and she was sent to her parental house in August, 1986 where she stayed for about six months. Subsequently she was taken back to her matrimonial house where she was physically assaulted repeatedly. Having no alternative the informant resorted to filing a criminal case being Chas P. S. Case No. 63 of 1987 in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners and after conclusion of the trial the petitioners were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced accordingly. 5. The petitioners preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1992 which, however, was also dismissed vide judgment dated 18.09.2000. 6. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. 7. P.W. 1, Sashidhar Pandey and P.W. 2, Sridhar Bouri, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 3, Ganesh Mahto and P.W. 4, Hulash Mahto, are the brother and father of the informant P.W. 5 (Sita Devi) who had stated about the marriage and subsequent torture meted out to the informant. 9. 7. P.W. 1, Sashidhar Pandey and P.W. 2, Sridhar Bouri, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. 8. P.W. 3, Ganesh Mahto and P.W. 4, Hulash Mahto, are the brother and father of the informant P.W. 5 (Sita Devi) who had stated about the marriage and subsequent torture meted out to the informant. 9. P.W. 5, Sita Devi, is the informant of the present case who has supported the narration made by her in the First Information Report and had categorically stated about the involvement of all the petitioners in committing torture upon her and demanding a motorcycle and cash. 10. P.W. 6, Ram Vijay Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who has stated about the P.Ws. 1 and 2 supporting the prosecution case as also the facts that the other witnesses in course of their examination under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. have supported the incident as well as the allegation levelled against the petitioners. 11. There being consistent evidence on record more specifically of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the learned trial court has rightly convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned appellate court has also on proper appreciation of the materials on record affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial court. 12. There being no cause to interfere in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and as affirmed by the learned appellate court, this application fails so far as the conviction passed against the petitioners are concerned. 13. However, as regards the sentence which has been awarded to the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners have remained for sometime in custody. The petitioners are facing the rigors of prosecution case since the year 1987. Since more than three decades have passed since the institution of the criminal case against the petitioners and coupled with the period already undergone by the petitioners the period of sentence awarded to the petitioners is modified to the period already undergone. 14. Theses applications stand dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.